Shipwright Subcomponents

ThunderVamp · Oct 20, 2021

Let's talk about Shipwright components for a few minutes here.

Now, everyone knows that RE'd space components are the undisputed kings. It only makes sense, you keep grinding after achieving Master Pilot to get the pieces of loot required to make a great RE'd component.

Crafted has its place.

But there's a flaw with crafted components that has always existed, and it shouldn't exist.

That flaw is the subcomponents used in the crafting. Every subcomponent can boost one or more stats on a final component. But that boost comes at a needless cost of some other stats. I'm going to give examples of this.

Let's start with the top of the list, Armor.
A Mark I Armor Panel (no subcomponent used) has a possible maximum stats of:
230 Armor
230 Hitpoints
680 Mass (lowest is better)
This assumes you have perfect resources. Results can vary with resource quality obviously.

After building mine, I have 13 experimentation points to use. I spend 9 points on Armor, and 4 points on Mass to reduce that as much as possible, resulting in the following armor panel:
230 Armor
188 Hitpoints
772 Mass

Not a bad armor panel overall for a Mark I.

Now, let's make another one exactly the same, but let's make it with a Mark 1 Armor Reinforcement Panel.
The Armor Reinforcement Panel panel will allow for:
Pros:
An increase in Armor and/or;
An increase in Hitpoints;
Cons:
An increase in Mass
With skill tapes, you'll have 13 points to spend in these categories. In this case, I'll put 9 points in Armor to max that and 4 points in Mass to try and reduce the amount of mass that will be added with this subcomponent.

My subcomponent after experimentation has:
+58 Armor
+47 Hitpoints
+116 Mass

Now I have an armor panel with these stats:
288 Armor
235 Hitpoints
888 Mass

I gained a mere 58 armor and 47 hitpoints, at a cost of 116 mass.

Why? Why add the mass? The part's not overpowered without that mass increase. Why the reasoning behind adding the negative effect?

This one's not even bad, though. Want bad? Look at the Armor Mass Reduction kit.

This time we have the same base Mark I Armor Panel:
230 Armor
188 Hitpoints
772 Mass

Let's make it with a Mark 1 Mass Reduction kit.
The Mass Reduction kit will allow for:
Pros:
An decrease in the Mass;
Cons:
A decrease in the Armor;
A decrease in the Hitpoints;
With skill tapes, you'll have 13 points to spend in these categories. In this case, I'll put 9 points in Mass to reduce it as much as I can and 4 points in Armor to try and mitigate the loss of Armor caused by this subcomponent.

My subcomponent after experimentation has:
-39 Armor
-43 Hitpoints
-92 Mass

Now I have an armor panel with these stats:
191 Armor
145 Hitpoints
680 Mass

I lost a mere 92 mass but lost 39 armor and 43 hitpoints.

Again, why? The part's still not overpowered with that mass decrease. Why the reasoning behind adding the negative effect?

And that's just a Mark I Armor panel. The difference really rears its ugly head at higher levels. Let's look...

A Mark IV Armor Panel (no subcomponent used) has a possible maximum stats of:
1576 Armor
1433 Hitpoints
10608 Mass (lowest is better)
This assumes you have perfect resources. Results can vary with resource quality obviously.

After building mine, I have 13 experimentation points to use. I spend 9 points on Armor, and 4 points on Mass to reduce that as much as possible, resulting in the following armor panel:
1576 Armor
1170 Hitpoints
12044 Mass

Not a bad armor panel overall for a Mark IV.

Now, let's make another one exactly the same, but let's make it with a Mark IV Armor Reinforcement Panel.

My subcomponent after experimentation has:
+358 Armor
+292 Hitpoints
+1820 Mass

Now I have an armor panel with these stats:
1934 Armor
1462 Hitpoints
13864 Mass

With the Mark I, the gain in Mass was slightly above the gain in Armor and Hitpoints combined (106 A+HP, 116 Mass).
Now, the gain in Mass is very disproportionate (650 A+HP, 1820 Mass). Again I ask, what's the reasoning behind it?

But hold on, it gets way worse.

Let's make it with a Mark IV Mass Reduction kit.

My subcomponent after experimentation has:
-241 Armor
-265 Hitpoints
-1434 Mass

Now I have an armor panel with these stats:
1335 Armor
904 Hitpoints
10609 Mass

You might think, not too shabby, right? Got the mass down to damned near the minimum it can get. But the hit to Armor and HP for not even a 2K drop in Mass? Wow.

And how about this...

If I made a Mark III Armor panel with a Reinforcement panel?
1215 Armor
991 Hitpoints
5553 Mass

The Mark IV with the mass reduction kit only has 120 more Armor, 87 LOWER HP, and over 5K MORE Mass than the Mark III with a Reinforcement Panel.

This holds true across the entire Mass Reduction kit line. The subcomponent is truly useless as it is.

Now, I can continue on with all the components and their subcomponents. Some of them are literally just as useless as the Mass Reduction kits and would be a waste of resouces even making them. But that would just be a LOT of typing for me and reading you don't wanna do.

For ones that are truly useless, like the Mass Reduction kits, I don't know an easy fix short of remove the negative aspects altogether. At least they may find a niche with some users.

At the very least, for all subcomponents for ship parts the negative aspects need to be removed. They don't serve a real purpose. If crafted SW parts were the end all/be all, they'd make sense but crafted is not end game gear.

Maxal · Sep 27, 2026

ThunderVamp said:
OK then, so let's discuss this.

I've been a SW my entire time of playing SWG, from CU period right as Rage of the Wookies launched right up until shortly before the end of Live. I was Bloodfin's premier SW. I wrote guides, held discussions, and many of those discussions revolved around the problems with subcomponents for the ship parts.

We believed that since the people in charge during the NGE weren't the ones who designed JTL, that they were afraid to mess with parts of it, including the existing schematics. That was kind of borne out when the introduced the overhaul subcomponents for engines that didn't even require JTL resources to craft. But they kept the same flawed system of penalizing their use with negative aspects.

But no, you don't seem to believe there is and always has been a problem with the subcomponents, so let's break it down.

Let's look at engines. But I'll be happy to go over ANY of the ship parts with you.

Now, let's stay moderate. We'll go with a Mark III Engine.
On Bloodfin I was crafting capped parts. So when I use the spreadsheets, I know they are accurate. And let's look at what it tells us. (Note: this scenario holds true regardless of resources, your stats just won't be as high as those in the example here if they aren't top resources)
You also need all skills to be able to have 18 points of experimentation.

Let's start building the engine:

We add our resources, but haven't experimented yet. This is what we have:
Armor 298.3
Hitpoints 596.6
Energy Maint. 1751.5
Mass 5303.4
Pitch 55.1
Yaw 55.1
Roll 55.1
Speed 62.3

Now, most pilots like to focus on speed. That's what most of my customers always went after, so I'll spend 9 points of experimentation on it. That puts speed at 77.0
Pitch and Yaw were usually the next biggies, with Roll that last item. We'd equalize P+Y, with 4 points each and 1 point in R: 60.5 P+Y, 56.4 Roll

Note that Trade-offs have now been made. Speed, P, Y, and R have been adjusted, but in doing so no decrease in Mass or Energy Maint could be made. No improvements to Armor or HP could be made.
So now our engine looks like this:

Armor 298.3
Hitpoints 596.6
Energy Maint. 1751.5
Mass 5303.4
Pitch 60.5
Yaw 60.5
Roll 56.4
Speed 77.0

Now, we can leave it like that and that's a basic engine. Lower than a base MandalMotors High Output Engine Prototype III even before any experimentation, but lower mass, energy maint, and better armor & HP. But we'd at least want to improve this with a subcomponent. That's what they're for.
So we decide.
Before they introduced the Engine Overhaul and the Stabilizer, you had the only the Limiter and the Overdriver

My customer here is going for speed, so he wants the Mk III Overdriver.

So I build the engine with a Mark III Overdriver.
The Overdriver can be experiemented with 2 stats: Energy Maint and Speed.
Using the Overdriver can increase the engine's speed, but at a cost of higher Energy Maint.
Base before experimentation:
EM: 397.7 increase
Speed: 9.9 increase

That right there is an increase in EM of 22.7% and a boost in Speed of only 11.1%.

The same 18 points for experiementation can be used, so we spend 9 in each giving us:
EM: 319 increase
Speed: 12 increase

That is now an increase in EM of 18.2% and a boost in Speed of only 15.6%.

Our final engine with a Overdriver looks like this:
Armor 298.3
Hitpoints 596.6
Energy Maint. 2070.5
Mass 5303.4
Pitch 60.5
Yaw 60.5
Roll 56.4
Speed 89.0

You got more speed, but it cost more of a percentage of EM to do it than you gained in speed. They could have left EM alone and you'd have a zippy engine that wasn't overpowered, wasn't game breaking, and didn't negate the end game RE'd gear. The negative aspect of the higher gain in EM was completely unnecessary.

But wait! Why not use the new Overhaul instead?

Sure, let's build the same engine then with a Mark 2 Engine Overhaul.
Again, here's our base engine without a subcomponent added during the build process:

Armor 298.3
Hitpoints 596.6
Energy Maint. 1751.5
Mass 5303.4
Pitch 60.5
Yaw 60.5
Roll 56.4
Speed 77.0

The Overhaul can be experiemented with 5 stats: P, Y, R, Speed, and Mass.
It doesn't increase EM at all! Yay! But it does increase mass....
Base before experimentation:
Pitch 7.9
Yaw 7.9
Roll 7.9
Engine Speed 9.2
Mass 1360.4

That right there is an increase in Mass of 25.7% and a boost in P, Y of only 13.1%, R of only 14% and a boost in Speed of only 12%.

Again, my customer wants that maneuverability and speed. Let's experiment there. 3 points each in P, Y, R, 9 in Speed. He has to sacrifice that mass, I guess.
Pitch 8.6
Yaw 8.6
Roll 8.6
Engine Speed 12
Mass 1360.4

That is now an increase in Mass of 25.7% and a boost in P, Y of only 14.2%, R of 15.3% and a boost in Speed of only 15.6%. There is no difference in the speed from the Overdriver to the Overhaul.

Our final engine with a Mk II Overhaul looks like this:
Armor 298.3
Hitpoints 596.6
Energy Maint. 1751.5
Mass 6663.8
Pitch 69.2
Yaw 69.2
Roll 65.0
Speed 89.0

You again got more speed, P, Y, and R, but it cost more of a percentage of Mass to do it than you gained in any of those stats. They could have left Mass alone and you'd have a Nicely speedy, maneuverable engine that STILL wasn't overpowered, wasn't game breaking, and didn't negate the end game RE'd gear. The negative aspect of the higher gain in Mass was again completely unnecessary.

"Hey, experiment for the mass on the Overhaul instead and then split the rest among the others!"

Sure, let's try it.

For refresher, the Overhaul can be experiemented with 5 stats: P, Y, R, Speed, and Mass.
Base before experimentation:
Pitch 7.9
Yaw 7.9
Roll 7.9
Engine Speed 9.2
Mass 1360.4

And let's go with say, 9 in Mass, 3 in speed, and 2 each in P, Y, R:
Pitch 8.4
Yaw 8.4
Roll 8.4
Engine Speed 10.2
Mass 800

That is now an increase in Mass of 15.1% and a boost in P, Y of 13.9%, R of 14.9% and a boost in Speed of only 13.3%.

Our final engine with a Mk II Overhaul with experimentation to reduce the added mass as much as possible looks like this:
Armor 298.3
Hitpoints 596.6
Energy Maint. 1751.5
Mass 6103.8
Pitch 68.9
Yaw 68.9
Roll 64.8
Speed 87.2

Once again the penalty was higher than the gain. If I spent all remaining points in speed after getting the Mass down as much as possible, then yeah, speed increase would have exceeded the increase in Mass, but at a cost to the maneuverability. I already made trade offs in the choices I had to spend the experimentation points on, and the subcomponent makes me sacrifice even more.

"What about that limiter instead?"
That reduces EM at a cost of Speed.

So fully experimented, you're left with an engine like this:
Armor 298.3
Hitpoints 596.6
Energy Maint. 1475.5
Mass 5303.4
Pitch 60.5
Yaw 60.5
Roll 56.4
Speed 68.0

EM reduced by 15.8% but at a cost of 11.7% of the speed. That's really extreme.
How extreme?
You could build a Mark II Engine with an overhaul sub that beats it in nearly every category except Armor and HP and EM, and the EM is still only 13.3% higher than the Mark III.
Armor 162.2
Hitpoints 324.0
Energy Maint. 1671.3
Mass 2921.4
Pitch 63.3
Yaw 63.3
Roll 59.43
Speed 75.2

This is just a few of the subcomponents for Engines. And this goes across the entire Shipwright crafting line.

If you think that's a good design, then I simply don't know what to tell you. We'll never agree.

Now, if they don't change it, that's their prerogative. I'll continue to push for it because I, and others, believe this is a flawed system. Other crafting professions don't see this issue because they don't get negatives added when they include their ingredients. And they don't have the sheer number of categories they have to decide on when choosing where to spend experimentation points.

Even the Elite harvesters have merely 2 lines for Experimentation: Experimental Storage and Experimental Efficiency.
And the Architect has the same number of points to experiment with as a SW does.

Are you Morda? I know you aren't Savaac, Sabatho, or Iffey. Those guys all make good stuff that people use in end game ship loadouts. I don't see them complaining about how hard it is. If you aren't Morda either, then you aren't making good parts, so I see why you are complaining. I still don't agree with you.

If I needed a level 5 engine, I would pick a crafted one, not an REd one since they outperform at their levels- 1,3,5,7,9. So, there is a place for all of them as they are currently made.

ksully09 · Sep 27, 2026

I also noticed one of the quotes as well

“Making subcomponents not worth using at all”

I’m not trolling or being a brow beater

But if you aren’t using subcomps because you don’t think they are worth it then you aren’t shipwrighting correctly, they are 100% worth it. And should be used in every single craft.

Trayus · Sep 27, 2026

ThunderVamp said:
OK then, so let's discuss this.

I've been a SW my entire time of playing SWG, from CU period right as Rage of the Wookies launched right up until shortly before the end of Live. I was Bloodfin's premier SW. I wrote guides, held discussions, and many of those discussions revolved around the problems with subcomponents for the ship parts.

We believed that since the people in charge during the NGE weren't the ones who designed JTL, that they were afraid to mess with parts of it, including the existing schematics. That was kind of borne out when the introduced the overhaul subcomponents for engines that didn't even require JTL resources to craft. But they kept the same flawed system of penalizing their use with negative aspects.

But no, you don't seem to believe there is and always has been a problem with the subcomponents, so let's break it down.

Let's look at engines. But I'll be happy to go over ANY of the ship parts with you.

Now, let's stay moderate. We'll go with a Mark III Engine.
On Bloodfin I was crafting capped parts. So when I use the spreadsheets, I know they are accurate. And let's look at what it tells us. (Note: this scenario holds true regardless of resources, your stats just won't be as high as those in the example here if they aren't top resources)
You also need all skills to be able to have 18 points of experimentation.

Let's start building the engine:

We add our resources, but haven't experimented yet. This is what we have:
Armor 298.3
Hitpoints 596.6
Energy Maint. 1751.5
Mass 5303.4
Pitch 55.1
Yaw 55.1
Roll 55.1
Speed 62.3

Now, most pilots like to focus on speed. That's what most of my customers always went after, so I'll spend 9 points of experimentation on it. That puts speed at 77.0
Pitch and Yaw were usually the next biggies, with Roll that last item. We'd equalize P+Y, with 4 points each and 1 point in R: 60.5 P+Y, 56.4 Roll

Note that Trade-offs have now been made. Speed, P, Y, and R have been adjusted, but in doing so no decrease in Mass or Energy Maint could be made. No improvements to Armor or HP could be made.
So now our engine looks like this:

Armor 298.3
Hitpoints 596.6
Energy Maint. 1751.5
Mass 5303.4
Pitch 60.5
Yaw 60.5
Roll 56.4
Speed 77.0

Now, we can leave it like that and that's a basic engine. Lower than a base MandalMotors High Output Engine Prototype III even before any experimentation, but lower mass, energy maint, and better armor & HP. But we'd at least want to improve this with a subcomponent. That's what they're for.
So we decide.
Before they introduced the Engine Overhaul and the Stabilizer, you had the only the Limiter and the Overdriver

My customer here is going for speed, so he wants the Mk III Overdriver.

So I build the engine with a Mark III Overdriver.
The Overdriver can be experiemented with 2 stats: Energy Maint and Speed.
Using the Overdriver can increase the engine's speed, but at a cost of higher Energy Maint.
Base before experimentation:
EM: 397.7 increase
Speed: 9.9 increase

That right there is an increase in EM of 22.7% and a boost in Speed of only 11.1%.

The same 18 points for experiementation can be used, so we spend 9 in each giving us:
EM: 319 increase
Speed: 12 increase

That is now an increase in EM of 18.2% and a boost in Speed of only 15.6%.

Our final engine with a Overdriver looks like this:
Armor 298.3
Hitpoints 596.6
Energy Maint. 2070.5
Mass 5303.4
Pitch 60.5
Yaw 60.5
Roll 56.4
Speed 89.0

You got more speed, but it cost more of a percentage of EM to do it than you gained in speed. They could have left EM alone and you'd have a zippy engine that wasn't overpowered, wasn't game breaking, and didn't negate the end game RE'd gear. The negative aspect of the higher gain in EM was completely unnecessary.

But wait! Why not use the new Overhaul instead?

Sure, let's build the same engine then with a Mark 2 Engine Overhaul.
Again, here's our base engine without a subcomponent added during the build process:

Armor 298.3
Hitpoints 596.6
Energy Maint. 1751.5
Mass 5303.4
Pitch 60.5
Yaw 60.5
Roll 56.4
Speed 77.0

The Overhaul can be experiemented with 5 stats: P, Y, R, Speed, and Mass.
It doesn't increase EM at all! Yay! But it does increase mass....
Base before experimentation:
Pitch 7.9
Yaw 7.9
Roll 7.9
Engine Speed 9.2
Mass 1360.4

That right there is an increase in Mass of 25.7% and a boost in P, Y of only 13.1%, R of only 14% and a boost in Speed of only 12%.

Again, my customer wants that maneuverability and speed. Let's experiment there. 3 points each in P, Y, R, 9 in Speed. He has to sacrifice that mass, I guess.
Pitch 8.6
Yaw 8.6
Roll 8.6
Engine Speed 12
Mass 1360.4

That is now an increase in Mass of 25.7% and a boost in P, Y of only 14.2%, R of 15.3% and a boost in Speed of only 15.6%. There is no difference in the speed from the Overdriver to the Overhaul.

Our final engine with a Mk II Overhaul looks like this:
Armor 298.3
Hitpoints 596.6
Energy Maint. 1751.5
Mass 6663.8
Pitch 69.2
Yaw 69.2
Roll 65.0
Speed 89.0

You again got more speed, P, Y, and R, but it cost more of a percentage of Mass to do it than you gained in any of those stats. They could have left Mass alone and you'd have a Nicely speedy, maneuverable engine that STILL wasn't overpowered, wasn't game breaking, and didn't negate the end game RE'd gear. The negative aspect of the higher gain in Mass was again completely unnecessary.

"Hey, experiment for the mass on the Overhaul instead and then split the rest among the others!"

Sure, let's try it.

For refresher, the Overhaul can be experiemented with 5 stats: P, Y, R, Speed, and Mass.
Base before experimentation:
Pitch 7.9
Yaw 7.9
Roll 7.9
Engine Speed 9.2
Mass 1360.4

And let's go with say, 9 in Mass, 3 in speed, and 2 each in P, Y, R:
Pitch 8.4
Yaw 8.4
Roll 8.4
Engine Speed 10.2
Mass 800

That is now an increase in Mass of 15.1% and a boost in P, Y of 13.9%, R of 14.9% and a boost in Speed of only 13.3%.

Our final engine with a Mk II Overhaul with experimentation to reduce the added mass as much as possible looks like this:
Armor 298.3
Hitpoints 596.6
Energy Maint. 1751.5
Mass 6103.8
Pitch 68.9
Yaw 68.9
Roll 64.8
Speed 87.2

Once again the penalty was higher than the gain. If I spent all remaining points in speed after getting the Mass down as much as possible, then yeah, speed increase would have exceeded the increase in Mass, but at a cost to the maneuverability. I already made trade offs in the choices I had to spend the experimentation points on, and the subcomponent makes me sacrifice even more.

"What about that limiter instead?"
That reduces EM at a cost of Speed.

So fully experimented, you're left with an engine like this:
Armor 298.3
Hitpoints 596.6
Energy Maint. 1475.5
Mass 5303.4
Pitch 60.5
Yaw 60.5
Roll 56.4
Speed 68.0

EM reduced by 15.8% but at a cost of 11.7% of the speed. That's really extreme.
How extreme?
You could build a Mark II Engine with an overhaul sub that beats it in nearly every category except Armor and HP and EM, and the EM is still only 13.3% higher than the Mark III.
Armor 162.2
Hitpoints 324.0
Energy Maint. 1671.3
Mass 2921.4
Pitch 63.3
Yaw 63.3
Roll 59.43
Speed 75.2

This is just a few of the subcomponents for Engines. And this goes across the entire Shipwright crafting line.

If you think that's a good design, then I simply don't know what to tell you. We'll never agree.

Now, if they don't change it, that's their prerogative. I'll continue to push for it because I, and others, believe this is a flawed system. Other crafting professions don't see this issue because they don't get negatives added when they include their ingredients. And they don't have the sheer number of categories they have to decide on when choosing where to spend experimentation points.

Even the Elite harvesters have merely 2 lines for Experimentation: Experimental Storage and Experimental Efficiency.
And the Architect has the same number of points to experiment with as a SW does.

Nova engine with overhaul mk2 is 122 ts 79.xPY 77.xR, Top notch RE E0's on resto rest around 118-119TS with 84-85PYR Main difference being RE engines having Lower mass/RED Which makes the nova engine the ideal to use in Heavier chassis for an end game capable ship. I have been an active pvp pilot since i started on resto and i served as the space senator for two terms and i still use a nova engine crafted with an Overhaul mk2. The negatives in subcomps mean Crafted parts will never have amazing stats across the board whereas RE can. That's the tradeoff while there are crafted components are still somewhat worse while still being competitive in their own niches. Crafted components still serve their role in being capable of carrying a person from start to endgame and then fill in niches while they work on their final loadout. This would negate the advantage of RE e0's It has a meta impact beyond the low end components.

smogs · Sep 28, 2026

Trayus said:
Nova engine with overhaul mk2 is 122 ts 79.xPY 77.xR, Top notch RE E0's on resto rest around 118-119TS with 84-85PYR Main difference being RE engines having Lower mass/RED Which makes the nova engine the ideal to use in Heavier chassis for an end game capable ship. I have been an active pvp pilot since i started on resto and i served as the space senator for two terms and i still use a nova engine crafted with an Overhaul mk2. The negatives in subcomps mean Crafted parts will never have amazing stats across the board whereas RE can. That's the tradeoff while there are crafted components are still somewhat worse while still being competitive in their own niches. Crafted components still serve their role in being capable of carrying a person from start to endgame and then fill in niches while they work on their final loadout. This would negate the advantage of RE e0's It has a meta impact beyond the low end components.

90 PYR but yes a nova etc shouldnt contend with a top notch RE E0.

I'd be all for boosting it if anything comparable TS wise was a drop but to hit nova/proto mk5 TS you need an absolute unicorn convoy loot..

Iffey · Sep 28, 2026

As an example, there are 2 possible Droid Interface subcomponents and they each have 2 stat lines: droid command speed and energy maintenance. One hastens speed/increases RED. The other slows speed/reduces RED. Are you suggesting they both reduce RED and hasten speed? What’s the difference then? This holds true among several subcomponents - most of which are 2 stat lines (engine subs being the notable difference).

Negative aspects of subcomponents is part of the shipwright crafting and knowledge process. In my opinion, removing negative stats would lower the complexity of shipwrighting and create imbalances with crafted parts.

Downvoted

Foomerang · Sep 30, 2026

Im glad there are so many knowledgeable and passionate shipwrights on resto.

I will say that having access to low mass variants that had worse stats in other areas have been good for outfitting 90k chassis and it allowed me to slowly swap out low mass crafted components as I worked toward my RE projects.

I was able to farm t4 duties in all crafted which I think has always been the consensus with outfitting your ship for end game.

Crafted vs drop is a balancing act unique to the space game and I have to agree with others while not perfect, it's in a pretty good place right now.

I also think it will only get better as the recent cap changes to jtl resources will begin to close the gaps even further.

But I did want to say to the OP that I read all of your post and I'm glad you are here on resto. Having passionate crafters is always a good thing and I appreciate you.

Shipwright Subcomponents

ThunderVamp

Maxal

ksully09

Trayus

smogs

Iffey

Foomerang